Ukraine, US near 20-point peace deal as Putin spurns Zelenskyy Christmas ceasefire offer caps

As 2025 drew to a close, diplomatic efforts to end the war in Ukraine appeared to reach a pivotal moment, albeit one fraught with tension and uncertainty. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and senior U.S. officials have been negotiating a detailed peace framework composed of roughly 20 points intended to provide security guarantees, economic reconstruction plans, and a path toward a durable cessation of hostilities. Yet, on Christmas Eve, Russian President Vladimir Putin rejected a Ukrainian offer for a temporary ceasefire, underscoring the difficulty of translating diplomatic progress into a tangible halt in violence and highlighting the profound differences that remain between Kyiv, Washington, and Moscow.

Zelenskyy described the emerging agreement as a significant milestone after months of complex diplomacy. Speaking from Kyiv in late December, he said that talks with United States negotiators had yielded a near-final framework for peace that includes security commitments involving Ukraine, the U.S., and European partners, as well as parallel economic arrangements to support Ukraine’s recovery after years of war. He acknowledged that the plan was not perfect but said the progress was real and that key annexes, particularly those addressing Ukraine’s defense needs, were largely agreed upon.

The 20 points in the proposed framework are designed to form the basis of a comprehensive peace settlement. While Zelenskyy and American officials have not disclosed every detail publicly, they have emphasized that the plan includes assurances of military support, commitments by Western partners to help uphold Ukrainian security, and strategies for economic reconstruction once active combat operations have ceased. Zelenskyy said discussions also produced a separate bilateral document with the United States to be reviewed by the U.S. Congress, reflecting how deeply intertwined the negotiations have become with broader international cooperation.

But even as Kyiv and Washington advanced their shared vision, the Kremlin’s response to the ceasefire component has been starkly dismissive. Russian officials declined Zelenskyy’s suggestion of a Christmas ceasefire, a proposal the Ukrainian leader characterized as a humanitarian gesture to ease suffering during the holiday season. Zelenskyy called Moscow’s refusal a “bad signal” and warned that the absence of a truce could lead to continued attacks during a period traditionally marked by calls for peace.

Moscow’s reticence to embrace the ceasefire reflects broader tensions over the terms of any ending to the war. Russian authorities have indicated that while they are reviewing the U.S.-backed peace proposal — including the security and economic components of the framework — they view the document as merely a starting point for further negotiation. According to Kremlin sources, Moscow is expected to seek significant changes, particularly around restrictions on Ukraine’s military forces and other provisions it considers critical to addressing its own perceived security concerns.

The gap between Kyiv’s public optimism and Moscow’s cautious posture underscores how elusive peace has been nearly four years into the conflict. Ukrainian officials have stressed that any ceasefire or peace agreement must be coupled with robust security guarantees to prevent a resumption of hostilities. They have sought assurances not just from the United States, but from a coalition of European partners, signaling a broader international commitment to Ukraine’s defense.

Despite these diplomatic efforts, fighting on the ground continues to shape the negotiations. Russia’s military actions have shown no sign of abating, even as peace talks proceed. The ongoing conflict has exacted a tragic toll on civilians and infrastructure across Ukraine, reinforcing why Ukrainian leaders have pushed for an immediate ceasefire and long-term security architecture. Meanwhile, U.S. and European officials have repeatedly underscored the importance of diplomacy while maintaining pressure on Moscow to agree to terms that respect Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.

International reaction to the stalled ceasefire call has been mixed. Some global voices — including religious leaders and human rights advocates — have renewed appeals for a truce during the holiday season, even as combat persists. These appeals often emphasize humanitarian relief and the moral imperative of pausing violence, particularly during periods traditionally associated with peace and reconciliation.

For U.S. policymakers, the near completion of a 20-point plan represents a delicate diplomatic achievement, even if much work remains. American officials have described the negotiations as constructive and a necessary step toward “lasting and durable peace,” though they have also acknowledged that mutual mistrust and fundamental disagreements over territorial questions and military conditions pose formidable obstacles.

In Kyiv, Zelenskyy has sought to portray the framework as a blueprint for ending a war that has reshaped European security and strained international relations. He has emphasized the need for solidarity among Ukraine’s allies and reiterated that compromises will be necessary to bring about a cessation of hostilities. At the same time, he has made it clear that any agreement must safeguard Ukraine’s ability to defend itself and maintain its sovereignty.

The next phase of diplomacy will likely involve careful review of the 20-point proposal by all parties. Russian officials have said they will analyze the documents and respond with their own position, a process that could take days or longer. Meanwhile, the absence of a formal ceasefire agreement leaves the cessation of fighting uncertain and places continued pressure on negotiators to find terms that might satisfy both strategic interests and humanitarian concerns.

What emerges from these deliberations will shape not only the immediate future of Ukraine but also broader questions about European stability and the international rules-based order. The effort to negotiate peace amid continued conflict highlights the difficulty of reconciling competing national interests, even with strong diplomatic backing from powerful allies. As 2026 approaches, the world watches whether these negotiations can bridge deep divisions or whether the war will persist without a clear path to peace.